FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST CLASS IV - HUBBARD ADVANCED AUDITOR (HAA) CASE SUPERVISOR COURSE - PART 8/14 ************************************************** This is the Class IV Case Supervisor Course (HAA) Course Pack as issued and delivered in the 1975 - 1976 time frame. The contents will be posted separately as part 0 and repeated in part 1 but will not be included in the remaining parts to keep the size down. NOTE: With the following exceptions, all documents are reproduced exactly as issued. All italicized or bold characters and underlines have been omitted from this reproduction. Only minor spelling errors have been corrected. If you have questions about the content of an individual issue please refer to the Tech or OEC Volumes (which were posted previously) for clarification. ************************************************** STATEMENT OF PURPOSE Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet. The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists. It misuses the copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom. They think that all freezoner's are "squirrels" who should be stamped out as heritics. By their standards, all Christians, Moslems, Mormons, and even non-Hassidic Jews would be considered to be squirrels of the Jewish Religion. The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings of Judiasm form the Old Testament of Christianity. We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against. But even though the Christians are not good and obedient Jews, the rules of religious freedom allow them to have their old testament regardless of any Jewish opinion. We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists. We ask for others to help in our fight. Even if you do not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose to aid us for that reason. Thank You, The FZ Bible Association - Unit 21 ************************************************** ===================== 044. HCOB 28 Sept 1971 C/S Series 62 Know Before You Go HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 28 SEPTEMBER 1971 (corrected and reissued) Remimeo C/S Series 62 KNOW BEFORE YOU GO A C/S may and should know exactly what is wrong with a case. When he "knows" by hunches or intuition and does not bother to confirm or make a wider effort, he can miss the case entirely. Example: C/S says to himself - I know what's wrong with Joe. His wife. So I'll C/S "O/W on your wife". Some of the time the C/S will be right. This gives him a win and confirms him in sloppy C/Sing. He does not bother to know before he C/Ses. A C/S who gets a low percentage of cracked cases and a low percent of F/N VGIs at Examiner usually fails to "know before he goes". He just goes, which is to say he just writes programs and C/Ses without finding out enough about the case. A skilled C/S may very well be able to figure out exactly what's wrong with the case. That's his job. But how does he find out anything about the case at all? The answer is very simple. So simple it gets missed. THE C/S GETS DATA ON THE CASE. How does he do this? The broadest, most used answer to how to know is prepared lists. These have all sorts of questions on them that read or don't read. There are lots of these lists beginning with the famous PC Assessment Form. There are all sorts of lists. An end product of any list is DATA ON THE PC ONE USES TO PROGRAM AND C/S THE CASE. The next answer to how to get data is lists prepared by the C/S himself and which are assessed by the Auditor. Another answer is 2 way comm on questions written by the C/S. "What do you consider hasn't been handled on your case, is a jewel which gives you the hidden standard to List and Null and run who or what would have _________ to BD F/N Item and O/W on the item found. But there are dozens more. "How do you feel about your family?" "R Factor: The C/S is conceded about your saying your case sags after wins in auditing. Could you tell me exactly what happed and what your history has been on this?" There is no limit to such questions. And, if taken from what the pc says to Examiner or from auditors comments on work sheets, they will usually F/N. But mainly they give data. HCOB 28.9.71 - 2 - When regular actions fail, there is always the D of P. "D of P to Interview Richard Roe and find out what he's trying to do in session.. Also how he looks, mannerisms, etc." Data, Data, Data. Now you have a picture of this case. COMBINED ACTION Usually, by prepared lists issued or from C/S prepared lists, the C/S finds and gets handled by the auditor in the same session much of what is wrong. This combines finding Out with handling. Any prepared list carried to F/N on each read (Method 3) or the indicated action done will give case gain. Maybe its all the case gain one could ask for. But such reads even if F/Ned and the text in the Work- sheet gives the C/S new data about this case. BROAD SHOOTING Even if he now KNOWS, the C/S does not narrowly shoot at one target. He gives alternatives as well in his C/S. Example: C/S knows pc is concerned about F/Ns. He does not necessarily just write "Prepcheck F/Ns". Instead the C/S writes "Assess Auditors, Auditing, Dianetics, Scientology, F/Ns, Processing, false reads. Prepcheck each reading item, taking largest read first." This gives a broader band, more chance of hitting the button needed. There are many ways to do this. Example:' You "know" it is a misdefined word. You don't C/S "Find the misdefined word." You write, "Assess Method 3 and Handle the Word Clearing Correction List." For you see, the session might also have been run over an out rud. EVALUATION To abruptly C/S everything the pc has just said is a Q and A. But worse, it can lead to evaluation. LITTLE FLAGS Pc Remarks are like little Flags that may signal a much deeper deposit of aberration. 0nly the little flag shows. "I don't like women," can uncover a whole background. "I keep getting this pain in my side" opens the door to a whole chain of operations and one to be done next week! But by the broad rule, the C/S doesn't dive at it. He says "Pc has pain in side. 1. C/S 54." HCOB 28.9.71 - 3 - Not "List the somatics in his side." But a whole coverage of accidents, illnesses. One will also have a side pain as a result. "Appendicitis Operation" is enough to give anyone a pain in the side if never audited out ! TAGGING CASES A C/S who sees a case is thick foldered and not well tags the case "Resistive". There are 7 resistive cases listed in the Class VIII material. For this the C/S has "GF40 Expanded Method 3" and then handles the lists and engrams indicated in it in his next C/S. If this doesn't handle, the case is in an out Ethics situation that should be looked into. The C/S mentally tags the easy ones and the tough ones. The tough ones he plays on the Resistive Cases side. The C/S can also find an auditor considers a fast case a bad case when it is just a fast case PRIMARY RECORD The primary record is the pc's folder. When the case does not run well it can be assumed that the case is (a) Resistive (b) Errors have been made in auditing. These two assumptions are valid in all cases which do not easily resolve. They are both valid because the case, being resistive was running poorly, was hard to audit and C/S earlier. From the folder, from prepared lists, from C/S's own additions to prepared lists, from C/Ses own prepared lists, from 2wc on questions and from D of P Interviews one can get ENOUGH DATA TO INTELLIGENTLY PROGRAM AND C/S A CASE. All this may seem very obvious BUT, in word clearing the most Common C/S error has been to fail to order a Word Clearing Correction list done. Instead one reads, "Correct the last word found". This misses that the whole thing may be being done over a withhold or ARC Break. It might be another word entirely. So a C/S who does this risks the wrong target. He is not C/Sing broadly enough. Also one sees a repair or life program consisting of two or three special processes and without any lists at all. One also sees a program which seeks to handle several things the C/S "Knew" was wrong followed by "8. C/S 53, 9. GF 40X, 10. C/S 54." Having gone, this program then seeks to find out. It's quite backwards. HCOB 28.9.71 - 4 - Thus the C/S who goes before he knows is going to have an awful lot of no F/Ns at the Examiner. The watchword is KNOW BEFORE YOU GO. L. RON HUBBARD FOUNDER LRH:nt Copyright ($) 1971 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ===================== 045. BTB 12 Dec 1971R C/S Series 69R Mandatory C/Sing Checklist BOARD TECHNICAL BULLETIN 12 DECEMBER 1971R REVISED & REISSUED 1 AUGUST 1974 AS BTB (REVISION IN ITALICS) Remimeo Auditors Internes C/Ss CANCELS HCO BULLETIN OF 12 DECEMBER 1971 SAME TITLE C/S Series 69R These are the actions, compiled from earlier LRH HCOBs, that are always done by a C/S whenever he C/Ses any folder. All the C/Sing data in the world would be of little use if these mandatory actions were omitted. 1. INSPECT THE EXAMINER'S REPORT to See if the PC thought the session was okay and if the Examiner's notation of TA, needle and indicators show it was F/N GIs. 2. INSPECT THE PRE-SESSION C/S to see what was previously ordered done. 3. INSPECT THE LAST SESSION to see if the C/S was done. Check that each separate part of the C/S was done.) 4. INSPECT IN THE WORKSHEET THAT EACH STEP OF EACH PROCESS OR ACTION WAS CORRECTLY DONE INCLUDING CORRECT COMMANDS USED AND EXPECTED PC RESPONSE FOR THOSE COMMANDS. (For Dianetics ($) this would be the 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 se- quence and A,B,C,D etc. to see if it was standard. Other processes and actions have their own steps - which the C/S must know in order to be in compliance with the High Crime PL.) 5. INSPECT CAREFULLY THAT ALL LISTING ACTIONS HAVE BEEN CORRECTLY DONE: find out if there was mislisting. 6. INSPECT THAT F/N, COG, AND VGIs OCCURED AT THE END OF EACH PROCESS AND ACTION (each chain in Dianetics) AND AT SESSION END. (Text is seldom read unless the session did not go well, If you can't read the reports, send them back to have the Auditor over print illegible words. Never try to C/S an illegible worksheet.) 7. HAVE THE EXAMINER ASK THE PC WHAT THE AUDITOR DID IF THE AUDITING REPORTS DON'T SHOW THE ERROR AND SEEM FALSE. (i.e. Auditor's account of session doesn't match pc's statement and indicators at Examiner.) BTB 12.12.71R - 2 - Rev. 1.8.74 8. GIVE THE SESSION A GRADING OF VERY WELL DONE, WELL DONE, WELL DONE BY EXAM, NO MENTION OR FLUNK depending on what was found in above points. VERY WELL DONE if all the above points are okay and the session is exactly by the book. WELL DONE for F/N, VGIs at session end and at Examiner - no major tech errors but not exactly by the book. WELL DONE BY EXAM for F/N, VGIs at session end and at Examiner but Admin and session actions not OK. NO SESSION GRADE MENTION if the session end was F/N, VGIs but the F/N wasn't present at the Examiner - pro- vided there were no major tech errors in the session. FLUNK FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING: F/N did not get to Examiner and was not present at session end Major errors or flubs occurred like no EP. multiple somatic run, unflown ruds, mislisting, etc. C/S not followed or completed. Auditors Rights errors occurred. No F/N and BIs at Examiner, etc. 9. WRITE OUT IN TRIPLICATE ON ANY OUT TECH AND AUDITOR GOOFS - INDICATE THE RIGHT OUTNESS AND CRAMMING CYCLES FOR THEM. One copy goes to D of P to auditor, one copy goes to Cramming Officer and one copy is kept as a check to see that the order is done. 10. NOW INSPECT - IS THE CASE RUNNING WELL AND IS IT CORRECTLY PROGRAMMED? DO WE JUST CONTINUE? DO WE REPAIR RECENT GOOFS AND CONTINUE? DO WE NEED FULL FES OR LISTS TO FIND THE BUG IN THE CASE AND THEN REPAIR THAT (INCLUDING PREVIOUS INCOMPLETE CYCLES?) 11. NOW CHECK THE AUDITOR'S C/S FOR THE NEXT SESSION - DOES IT FOLLOW THE PROGRAM FOR THE CASE IN THE FRONT OF THE FOLDER OR DOES IT Q AND A AND GO OFF IN ANOTHER DIRECTION? A. Does it recommend to continue with the next action on the case programme, if the case is doing well and the last session went okay B. Does it recommend the necessary brief repair action and then continue the program actions if the case has been running well but there has now been an error on the case? BTB 12.12.71R - 3 - Rev. 1.8.74 C. Does it recommend a program to debug and handle the case if it is not running well or has started to do poorly in life (Ethics conditions, accidents, etc. (Including use of lists to get data or an FES etc?) It is the C/S responsibility to ensure that all Ethics medical and other relevant reports are included in the PC folders and that PCs are not audited while under heavy ethics actions. 12. APPROVE THE EXISTING C/S IF IT IS OKAY IN LINE WITH THE ABOVE. OTHERWISE CORRECT IT OR WRITE UP AN ENTIRELY NEW C/S. 13. WRITE UP A CRAMMING ORDER ON THE C/SING ACTION IF THE AUDITOR WAS WAY OFF ON HIS C/S (OR ADD THIS TO THE EXISTING CRAMMING ORDER FOR THAT SESSION). 14. "If the case is not running well and generally, the C/S goes back to the point where the case WAS running well (good wins) and come forward. The largest bug on the case often will be in the session later than the last good one. The C/S should correct the bad session. Where this does not resolve the case, a study for incomplete programs and other outnesses should be made with a program to complete and handle." LRH IMPORTANT. Keep the three golden rules of C/Sing always in the above actions. They are: 1. NEVER FAIL TO FIND AND POINT OUT AN ACTUAL GOOF AND SEND THE AUDITOR TO CRAMMING. 2. NEVER INVALIDATE OR HARASS AN AUDITOR FOR A CORRECT ACTION OR WHEN NO TECHNICAL GOOF HAS OCCURRED. 3. ALWAYS RECOGNIZE AND ACKNOQLEDGE A TECHNICALLY PERFECT SESSION. The C/S must drill on this bulletin until he knows each point by number just the way a Dianetics Auditor is required to know points 1 to 9 and A to D. He can also keep a copy of this bulletin on the wall over his desk, to refer to until he knows the sequence cold. Even then he should refer to it from time to time to ensure he drops out none of the steps. Auditors writing up C/Ses for the next session must refer to this bulletin also. BTB 12.12.71R -4- Rev. 1.8.74 (This BTB is compiled from earlier C/S Series HCOBs and from the following earlier LRH HCOBs: HCOB 1 Sept 68 Points on Case Supervision HCOB 11 Sept 68 Case Supervisor Data HCOB 8 Oct 68 Case Supervisor - Folder Handling HCOB 28 June 69 C/S How to Case Supervise Dianetic Folders.) Training & Services Aide From C/S Coaching Actions by L. RON HUBBARD FOUNDER Revised & Reissued as BTB by Flag Mission 1234 I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis 2nd: Molly Harlow Authorized by AVU for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY ($) BDCS :SW:AL:MH:BW :mh Copyright ($) 1971, 1974 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ===================== 046. HCOB 3 Jan 1972 C/S Series 69 Addition C/Sing Checklist HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 3 JANUARY 1972 Remimeo Auditors Interns C/Ses C/S Series 69 ADDITION C/SING CHECKLIST (If a copy of C/S Series 69 is posted on the wall, also post this.) Nothing in this checklist for C/Sing relieves the auditor or C/S from full knowledge of the entire C/S Series. Nothing in the C/S Series is changed by this checklist. ADDITION No. 10. Add. The time honored way of seeing what has to be repaired in a Case not running well is GO BACK IN THE FOLDER TO WHERE THE CASE WAS RUNNING WELL AND COME FORWARD. The major error or departure is in the very next session after that. The bugs after the high point should be repaired as the fast action to set the case going again. The repair and handling of bogged cases is the finest skill of a C/S. Really it is why he is there. To do this he has to know the C /S Series thoroughly know all the materials of all levels he is C/Sing better than the auditor. The use of prepared lists, WC Correction List, Green Form, C/S 53, Hi-Lo TA, GF 40RR, Int-Ext Corr List, L1C and others, including "Have Examiner ask the pc what happened in session" are used to get information and correct as well as folder studies. KNOW BEFORE YOU GO. L. RON HUBBARD FOUNDER LRH:nt Copyright ($) 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ===================== 047. HCOB 19 Apr 1972 C/S Series 77 Quickie Defined HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 19 APRIL 1972 Remimeo C/S Series 77 "QUICKIE" DEFINED The reason an auditor can say he doesn't "quickie a rundown" (and none ever say they do) is because he has no definition for the word QUICKIE. The word has been used to designate rundowns that were not completely and fully done. It is not a slang word. In the dictionary you will find "Quickie also quicky: something done or made in a hurry. Also: a hurriedly planned and executed program (as of studies)." What happens in auditing, for instance, is a "Grade Zero Expanded" is "done" by just doing a single flow to its first F/N. That is obviously "quickie", A more subtle one is to do a "PTS Rundown" with no Ethics action to begin and no check for stability, holding gain and not ill a week or two after the RD. Only if both these actions were done would one have a "Complete PTS Rundown" as It would give a PRODUCT = A PC no longer PTS. So what makes a Quickie "completion" quickie? Is It length of time? Not necessarily. Is it fewness of processes? Not necessarily as Power can be done quickie simply by not hanging on for the EP and only going to F/N. To define COMPLETE gives us the reverse of Quickie. COMPLETE: To make whole, entire or perfect; and after satisfying all demands or requirements." A Completion is "the act or action of completing, becoming complete or making complete". So "completing" something is not a loose term. It means an exact thing. "End after satisfying all demands or require- ments" does not mean "doing as little as possible" or "doing what one can call complete without being detected." Anything that does not fully satisfy all requirements is QUICKIE. So "quickie" really means "omitting actions for whatever reason that would satisfy all demands or requirements and doing something less than could be achieved." HCOB 19.4.72 -2- In short a quickie is not doing all the steps and actions that could be done to make a perfect whole. Standard auditing actions required for ages that auditors cleared each word of each command. Yet when they went quickie they dropped this. When this was dropped, GAINS ON 75% OF All PCS LESSENED OR VANISHED. We are right now achieving spectacular wins on pcs just by clearing up commands and words on all lists. We are finding that these pcs did not recover and NEVER BEFORE HAD BEEN IN SESSION even though previously "audited" hundreds of hours. By omitting an essential action of clearing commands, processing did not work because the pc never understood the auditing commands! So quickie action did not save any time, did it? It wasted hundreds of hours! Quickie Programs are those which omit essential steps like Vital lists or 2wcs to get data. FESs for past errors are often omitted. To slow down the torrent of quickie actions on clearing commands HCO P/L 4 Apr 72 Issue III "Ethics and Study Tech" has Clause 4 "An auditor failing to clear each and every word of every command or list used may be summoned before a Court of Ethics. The charge is OUT TECH." Ethics has to enter in after Quickie Tech has gotten in. Because quickie tech is a symptom of out ethics. HCO P/L April 72 (Est 0 Series 13) "Doing Work" and HCO P/L 4 Apr 72 (Est 0 Series 14) "Ethics" are vital know-how where a C/S is faced with Quickie actions - or flubby ones that will not cure. Essential Quickie Tech is simply dishonest. Auditors who do it have their own Ethics out in some way. To be sure their confront is down. There are numerous remedies for the quickie impulse. The above mentioned Policy Letters and plain simple TR 0 are standard remedies. TR 0 properly done and completed itself usually cures it. Quickie study in '67 and '68 almost destroyed auditing quality. LRH Ed 174 Int which really pushes in Study Tech will achieve the primary reason for quickie - the auditor didn't understand the words himself. Wherever Quickie tendencies or false stats (the quickest quickie possible) show up, the above P/Ls had better be gotten into full use fast. L. RON HUBBARD FOUNDER LRH:mes Copyright ($) 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ===================== 048. HCOB 20 Apr 1972 C/S Series 78 Product Purpose and Why and Error Correction HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 20 APRIL 1972 ISSUE II Remimeo C/S Series 78 PRODUCT PURPOSE AND WHY AND WC ERROR CORRECTION Where untrained Auditors are finding Whys for a Danger Formula, or post purposes or post products as called for the Est 0 System you will get a certain amount of error and case disturbance. Such upsets also come from word clearing by incompetent persons. The C/S should look for these especially when such campaigns are in progress. He should suspect them as a possibility when a case bogs. A C/S must be sure all such papers and work sheets get into pc's folders. A common repair action is to (1) Do an assessment for type of charge. (2) Handle the charge found by the assessment done, (3) Fly all the reading items found on such assessments by 2wc or direct handling. (4) Suspect LISTING ERRORS on any Why or purpose or product found even though no list exists and reconstruct the list and L4B and handle it. (5) Handle word clearing of any type in or out of session with a Word Clear Correction List done in session by an Auditor. (6) When word clearing is too heavy on the pc or doesn't clean up suspect he has been thrown into implants which are mostly words or the words in some engram. As Implants are actually just engrams, handle it with an L3B. Any item found out of session or by a non auditor is suspect of being a Listing and Nulling (L&N) error even though no list was made. TODAY A CORRECT L&N ITEM MUST BD AND F/N. So treat such items as you would list errors and try to reconstruct the list and either confirm the item or locate the real item (may have been invalidated and Suppressed) or extend the list and get the real item. HCOB 20.4.72 - 2 - The real item will BD F/N. One can establish what the situation is with a post purpose, a Why or a product or any other such item by doing an L4B. SELF AUDITING The commonest reason for self auditing is a wrong or unfound L&N item. People can go around and self list or self audit trying to get at the right why or product or purpose after an error has been made. REACTION NOTHING PRODUCES AS MUCH CASE UPSET AS A WRONG LIST ITEM OR A WRONG LIST. Even, rarely, a DIANETIC LIST can produce wrong list reactions. Ask the pc for his somatics and he blows up or goes into apathy. Or blows. Or attacks the auditor. ALL of the more violent or bad reactions on the part of the pc come from out-lists. Nothing else produces such a sharp deterioration in a case or even illness. OUT LISTS Therefore when one gets a sharp change in a case (like lowered tone, violence, blows, "determination to go on in spite of the supervisor," long notes from pcs, self C/Sing, etc etc the C/S SUSPECTS AN OUT LIST. This outness can occur in regular sessions even when the item was said to BD F/N. It can occur in "Coffee shop" (out of session auditing of someone), or by Est Os or poorly trained or untrained staff members or even in life. PTS When such actions as finding items by non-auditors are done on PTS people the situation can be bad, so one also suspects the person to be PTS to someone or something. "PTS" does not communicate well in an assessment question so one says "Someone or something is hostile to you" and "you are connected to someone or something that doesn't agree with Dianetics or Scientology." HCOB 20.4.72 - 3 - The main things to know when doing such repairs are (a) that such situations as wrong lists or upset people can occur in an org where untrained people are also using meters and (b) THAT IT IS UP TO THE C/S TO SUSPECT DETECT AND GET THEM HANDLED IN REGULAR SESSION. Do not ignore the possible bad influence. As the good outweighs the bad in such cases, it is not a correct answer to forbid such actions. It is a correct answer to require all such actions and worksheets become part of the folder. One can also persuade the D of P or Qual to gen in the people doing such actions. And do not ignore the effect such actions can have on cases and do not neglect to include them in C/Ses before going on with the regular program. They can all be repaired. L. RON HUBBARD FOUNDER LRH:nt Copyright ($) 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ===================== 049. HCOB 3 Mar 1969 Case Gain - Completing Levels HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex Remimeo HCO BULLETIN OF 3 MARCH 1969 Class VIII Level IV Tech Sec Qual Sec Staff Auditor's Hat CASE GAIN COMPLETING LEVELS Anyone who interprets "the real gains of a case consist of going up the levels" (which is true and was stated in order to prevent over-review) as meaning that the level a case is on is not to be conclusive or put the pc into good case condition, has a tech alter-is going. The registrar can use "You need the next level" but when Tech or Qual buy this as an excuse not to run levels right or to get gains on any given level it's time to look this fact over HARD. ANY LEVEL IS ITSELF CAPABLE OF STABLE CASE GAIN. If a level does not THEN THE CASE IS LOUSED UP ON EARLIER LEVELS and is a standard case of someone with a lower level out! This is all covered in Class VIII. This is true of ARC Straight Wire and OT VI alike. The rule holds. Any level is capable of giving a stable case gain and if it does not THERE IS SOMETHING VERY WRONG with the way it or an earlier level was run. To chase a pc on up the levels to cure an outness on earlier levels is idiocy. It is WASTING AUDITING. It is a shabby excuse for not setting a case up to be audited or auditing badly. To solve an earlier out tech situation one does not "give the next level". If a pc ends up at Level II (or OT II) without a stable gain attained then the set up of the case or the handling of it is SOUR. This is the most elementary situation in case repair. ANY LEVEL is capable of case gain and of being stable, the pc feeling good, etc. The drive to get the next level is very natural but when it becomes obsessive to get a case gain then it isn't the next level that's needed. ARC Straight Wire is more tech than Man ever had before. It produces a stable gain. This is true of every level on up. We have just had a PreOT whose case at every level "was going to be solved by the next level". People kept saying he "needed the next level" to solve his case. Bull. He got all the way to OT II before I caught wind of it. He "had to have OT III" to solve his case according to the Qual Sec. That case probably never made ARC Straight Wire! One or more earlier levels or ruds or 7 cases are out. That's the trouble with that case. If you now let him go on to OT III he'd cop it. The tech you are handling is capable of giving spectacular gains at every level. If it does not then the case has missed somewhere, comes under 7 resistive cases or out ruds or one or more missed or overrun levels. This is one of those things which seems to have been going around ("needs the next level to solve his case") for some time without my finding out about it. Sure they need their next level. But do they have their levels up to where they are? If they aren't in good shape at the end of any one level then there's a miss on the case and it must be repaired by standard tech. L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:hk.ei.rd Copyright ($) 1969 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ===================== [continued in 08b]